Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
fOK.TW4Na.ER
Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
SHADRA BEESLEY
EDITOR IN CHIEF
(,ABE BRADLEY
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBIIRG
PULSE EDITOR
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
HM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFER
DESIGN EDITOR
JENNY GERWICK
COPY CHIEF
BRET FURTWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
AlEX CORBIN
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LE1DELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
STEPHEN MILLER
KATIE STRINGER
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
KATY GAGNON
KER1 SPANGLER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
In my opinion
The mrv asks
mrv
questions?
Brilliant!
Once again, praise to the glorious
state of Oregon. Sometimes, we just get
it so right.
In Portland, jurors have politely yet
firmly requested their right to ask ques
tions during criminal trials; the practice
of questioning from a juror to the judge
or witness has previously been limited
to civil trials only.
Kindergarten teacher Stephen Her
mens, however, waved his written
question in front of the judge, until fi
nally granted his query.
Allowing juries to ask questions is
an interesting violation of a wall (i.e.
The Law) that keeps most people igno
rantly, yet not unhappily, out of the
system. We the general public don’t
need to know what is going on; in
stead, we blindly assume that justice is
being served. The guilty are prosecut
ed; the innocent are set free.
Of course, the real world rarely
functions in such a way. As anyone
who has ever made or heard lawyer
jokes knows, there is a reason (bogus,
perhaps) that lawyers are called the
scum of the earth; Sometimes,
lawyers twist justice to make it work
best for themselves, their clients and
their pocketbooks. Corruption occurs
most easily when the little people re
main unaware of what is happening;
when the system is working for them
they complacently assume that it is
working out well for everyone else.
Just think about the Enron scandal;
the CEOs at such a company have the
remarkable position of wielding a
great amount of power over unin
formed investors, who will eventually
use their ignorance to buy those
CEOs a new swimming pool.
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
This is why the idea of jury ques
tioning in the courtroom is such a good
one. Any human interaction is auto
matically made more fair to all when
proper communication ensues, and all
sides of a story are heard. Justice and a
lack of knowledge are mutually exclu
sive; justice relies on truth, and truth,
the truth in the mind of a juror, relies
on accurate and clear information.
Best about the system of jury ques
tioning is that it will probably make
lawyers’ jobs easier. If a lawyer truly
believes that his or her client is inno
cent, then infusing the minds of the
jury with truth will surely be the quick
est path to an accurate verdict.
Thus far, juror questioning has re
ceived a mostly positive response.
Surely it is difficult to argue with the
premise that jurors need and deserve
all of the information possible and per
tinent to a case. What’s more, it is
promising that a system of law (go Ore
gon!) has recognized the benefits to
creating attentive jurors (preparing to
ask questions of their own) who recog
nize their own importance within the
legal system. If jurors feel as though
they are supposed to be mentally in
volved in a court case, perhaps those
jurors will take their responsibility
more seriously.
The responsibility ot a juror is a large
responsibility indeed. The United
States is lucky to (finally) have a sys
tem wherein it is not just the educated
(usually privileged) making decisions
for everyone else. Splitting up the cards
of power so that everyone’s hand is a
little fairer seems a good path to the
values of fairness, and justice.
When jurors are allowed to ask
questions, they should feel their bur
den as legislators more strongly.
Indeed, jurors are important creators
of the law: In a country that strives to
be run by the people, for the people,
it is promising and wonderful that
Oregon has shown a concrete exam
ple of how such a system is supposed
to work.
It is nothing exciting, and the con
cept is hardly new, but it seems pretty
great to me: Encouraging jurors to ask
questions in the court is an easy way to
encourage all of us to increase our in
volvement and understanding.
You may not be a member of any
jury; I certainly am not, nor have ever
been. Still, understanding, valued so
highly by the Oregon legislature, cer
tainly carries through to the course of
all of our lives. Every time we make a
judgment, or pass a rule for ourselves
and others, we ought to ask, “What
don’t I know yet?”
Too often we think we have found
understanding. The problem is that
failed communication or mistaken
knowledge will only lead to bad judg
ment rather than fairness.
Our world does not need more ver
dicts; it needs more questions.
aileeslater@dailyemerald.com
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
___—.—
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to tetters@dattyemerakj.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submissions should
include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald
■ Editorial
Legislative
Session 73:
Win some,
lose some
On Friday, Aug. 5, the Oregon Legislature
ended one of its longest sessions in history.
The results of our lawmakers’ hard work?
As usual, education funding came out
just OK. With $5.24 billion allotted by the
state to fund local schools, some still say
that classrooms will continue to grow in
size, while money for teachers and school
programs will drop. Although the Oregon
Legislature has taken a step in the right di
rection by increasing education funding by
about a quarter of a million dollars from our
last two-year cycle, it is unclear whether
Oregon has realized what must be done to
bring our education up to par with schools
across the nation.
Of course, beside the new education
budget is a piece of legislation requiring
high school students to meet more criteria
in order to graduate. Four years of English,
three of math, and 24 credits per student
should be fun to provide, especially when
struggling schools have already received the
short end of Oregon’s money stick. Like
President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act
says: Students cannot achieve all that they
are capable of when educational leaders and
facilities are not well supported.
Luckily, not spending too much money
on education saved resources, so Oregon
could be the first to require a doctor’s pre
scription in order to obtain certain types of
cold medicine. That way the innocent will
be inconvenienced and have few legal al
ternatives, whereas methamphetamine
cooks will simply turn to other, probably il
legal means of creating drugs. Once again,
a piece of drug legislation that cuts every
which way except at the problem of drug
addiction itself. However, on a positive
note, it is promising that HB 2485 does
some good: It increases treatment facilities
for meth-users and classifies dumping
meth residue as a felony.
Unfortunately, a bill to provide tax breaks
for companies that create alternative energy
sources, namely biofuel, did not make it to a
vote. After a squabble about an amendment,
the bill was dead, never to reach the office
of Gov. Kulongoski, who had previously
mentioned his excitement abut signing the
bill. Shame.
One exciting and positive result of the
session is that Oregon now requires insur
ance agencies to offer mental health pa
tients the same treatment and benefit op
tions as patients with a physical illness.
Along with 35 other states, Oregon has
now taken an important step toward en
suring the health of its residents. Insurance
users (usually with lower incomes), who
must battle drug addiction, post-traumatic
stress disorder and a host of other mental
illnesses, are now supported by the state
in their fight for health.
Last but not least Senate Bill 1000 aimed
to give some form of equal rights to gay cou
ples. The Oregon Legislature, especially its
republicans, made it clear that the voices of
those backing SB 1000 were not valid or
worthy of respect. Republican House Speak
er Karen Minnis would not even let the issue
of civil unions for gay couples be presented
to the House; SB 1000 was dead before it hit
the ground, despite a promising yet bitter
sweet approval in the Senate. No matter
Oregon’s other accomplishments during the
73rd legislative session, many will remem
ber 73 as another year when some voices
were heard, and some were pushed under
the rug.